G.Shankar vs ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (DIRECTOR/PUBLIC GRIEVANCES/SOUTHERN) RAILWAY

THE complainant is the appellant.

THE case of the complainant is as follows: THE complainant purchased journey-cum-reservation ticket from Chennai Central to Howrah Junction under the Tatkal Sewa Journey Scheme on 16.4.2004 at Pondicherry. At the time of purchasing the ticket, the complainant had shown the xerox copy of his two-wheeler driving licence to prove his licence identity. After ascertaining and satisfying the identity of the complainant, the ticket was issued to him. THE complainant booked the ticket by Coromandal Express on 17.4.2004. THE complainant travelled in the train as scheduled and during the course of checking in the train by Flying Squad, Chennai, the complainant was asked to produce the journey ticket and it was produced along with the same identity card on which the ticket was purchased. When the original driving licence was asked, the complainant had stated that he had left it at his residence. But the Flying Squad charged him to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500 as excess fare ticket stating that he had travelled and produced xerox copy of the identity card and not with the original identity card. THE action on the part of the Flying Squad is illegal and it was only on the production of the xerox copy of the driving licence, the ticket was issued and insisting for the original on the way of the journey is against law and this has put the complainant into great mental torture. THE complainant was having Rs. 2,000 only during journey and the entire amount has been collected as excess fare ticket and that he had been put to great mental torture. THE Flying Squad has no right to charge the amount of Rs. 2,500 as excess fare. THE complainant had only shown the xerox copy of his two-wheeler driving licence at the time of purchasing the ticket and the booking clerk at that time could have asked for the original driving licence. THE complainant after reaching Kolkata, issued notice on 9.10.2004 for which the opposite party sent a reply on 10.11.2004 requesting the complainant to send more details. Accordingly, the details sought for were furnished with the letter dated 28.3.2005. Till date no action was taken by the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,500 collected as excess fare ticket along with interest at 18% p.a. and pay Rs. 2,5000 as compensation for mental agony. The case of the opposite parties is as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. As per Section 60(2)(a) of the Railways Act, the Central Government is authorized to frame rules for providing reserved accommodation to passengers. As such, the Central Government has famed rules for reserving accommodation in trains for the bona fide passengers, who wish to perform urgent journey under a new scheme Tatkal Sewa Scheme. As per the scheme, a few number of seats and berths in selected trains are earmarked for allotment to needy passengers on stipulation of some other conditions in order to prevent nuisance and cornering the berths and seats by unauthorized and anti-social elements. The rules pertaining to the scheme are strict. The provision was introduced to prevent blocking of berths by unauthorized persons and to prevent illegal purchase and selling of tickets. Para 6 of the rules elaborate about the documents that can be used as an authority to purchase the tickets. As per Rule 17, the passenger should carry the ticket and the same authority on which the ticket is booked during the journey and has to be produced while checking the tickets, failing which the passenger will be treated as travelling without ticket. The complainant purchased the ticket on 16.4.2004 at Pondicherry under the scheme. An amount of Rs. 1,414 was collected while issuing ticket to him for journey from Chennai to Howrah. The allegation that the ticket was issued on production of the copy of the driving licence is denied. The complainant could not produce the driving licence on which the ticket was purchased at the time of checking by Flying Squad and that he has purchased the ticket only by producing photo copy of the same. While issuing excess fare ticket, the petitioner in his own handwriting admitted that he has left the original licence at his home and affixed his signature. The endorsement clearly shows that the non-availability of driving licence with him was the reason for non-production of original driving licence in the train. The clerk, who was on duty at Pondicherry, issued ticket to the petitioner only after verifying his driving licence and not a xerox copy of the driving licence. As such, the petitioner was bound to carry the original driving licence during the journey and not a copy of the driving licence. There was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The action of the opposite parties in collecting the excess fare and penalty for not producing the original driving licence was in order as per the rules. The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.

No oral evidence was let in by both parties. Ex. C1 to C7 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex. R1 and R2 were marked on the said of the opposite parties. On consideration of the materials and documents, the District Forum has given a finding that the complainant is a consumer. On other points, the District Forum has come to a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum has also given a specific finding that the act of the opposite parties in collecting excess fare and penalty for not producing the original driving licence is correct and ultimately, the District Forum dismissed the complaint without cost.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the complainant has come forward with this appeal. The points for determination: (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) To what relief?

Point No. 1:

IT is admitted that the complainant purchased the ticket on 16.4.2004 under Tatkal Sewa Scheme for journey on 17.4.2004 and an amount of Rs. 1,414 was collected for the journey. IT is also admitted that as per the provisions of the Scheme a few number of seats and berths in selected trains are earmarked for allotment to needy passengers. IT is also admitted by the opposite party that in order to prevent the nuisance and cornering the berths and seats of unauthorized and anti-social elements, the rules pertaining to issue of tickets under the Scheme are made by the Central Government under the Railways Act. IT is also admitted that the Flying Squad while checking the passengers in the earmarked train, demanded the complainant to produce the identity card and the ticket. IT is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant produced the ticket along with the photo copy of the driving licence and that as the Flying Squad was not satisfied with the copy of the Identity Card, they collected excess fare and penalty from the complainant. It is contended on behalf of the appellant/complainant that at the time of purchasing the ticket, the complainant had shown only xerox copy of the driving licence to prove his licence identity and that after ascertaining and satisfying the identity of the complainant, the ticket was issued to him. Ex. C1 is the reservation ticket issued under the scheme. It is stated therein that the above ticket is valid with same identity card on which the ticket purchased. Ex. C3 is the xerox copy of the driving licence of the complainant. Relying upon the above document, it is contended by the appellant that as the ticket was issued on the basis of xerox copy i.e., Ex. C3 and as he carried the same along with the ticket, it is not open to the opposite parties to insist on the production of original driving licence. We are unable to accept the above contention put forward by the complainant. Rule 17 framed under Tatkal Sewa Scheme clearly states that all passengers, who have booked their tickets on Tatkal Service will be required to carry the requisite identification as prescribed in Para 6, which will be checked by ticket checking staff in the train and that in case the passenger does not produce the authority on the basis of which he has sought reservation under scheme, would be treated as travelling without ticket. For applicability of the Rule 17, it would be relevant to look into Rule 6. The above rules are contained in Ex. R1. Rule 6 lays down condition for booking ticket under the scheme. It is clearly stated in the above rule without any ambiguity, thus: "For booking, either a credit card of a bank with or without laser based photograph or a laser laminated photo identity card with a proper serial number or a voter identity card with photograph or a passport or a driving licence with laser laminated photograph and a Tatkal identity card issued by the Railways would constitute the authority for purchasing the ticket in Tatkal Service."

The reason for insisting the driving licence with laser laminated photograph is stated in the above rule. It is nowhere stated in the above rule that the copy of driving licence can be produced with laminated photograph. It is admitted in the complaint that the complainant had produced only xerox copy of the driving licence to the issuing authority at Pondicherry. The complainant has categorically admitted in the complaint that he had shown only xerox copy of the two-wheeler driving licence at the time of purchasing the ticket. On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite parties that on a detailed inquiry, it was found that the reservation clerk at Pondicherry has stated that the complainant was issued a ticket on production of original driving licence. But the complainant assails the above contention. As already stated the issuing authority should be satisfied with the identity of the person, who wish to avail the special scheme. As already stated, the photo identity card is insisted to prevent cornering of seats by anti-social elements. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that he produced only xerox copy of the driving licence to the issuing authority and that he was not directed to produce an original document by the issuing authority at Pondicherry. The complainant has not produced any materials to prove that only on the basis of production of xerox copy of the driving licence, the issuing authority issued ticket at Pondicherry. It is not even stated that the issuing authority at Pondicherry compared the xerox copy with the original driving licence at the time of booking ticket under the scheme. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the opposite parties in insisting the complainant for production of the original identity card was unauthorized. The Flying Squad as per the rules is entitled to insist for identity card on the basis of which the ticket was issued and the said condition is emobodied in Ex. C1 itself.

AS the Rule 17 states that the passenger should carry the ticket and the same authority on which the ticket is booked during journey and as the complainant failed to produce the original driving licence which should have been the basis on which the ticket is booked, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. AS already stated there are no materials to show that the complainant had shown only xerox copy of the ticket at the time of booking. Further, it is not clear whether Ex. C1 is the certified copy of the original. AS the opposite party insisted the complainant to produce the original identity card on which the ticket was booked, in the discharge of their duty, it cannot in any event be said that the act of the opposite party in levying penalty and collecting excess fare is illegal. Thus, looked at from any angle, the case of the complainant that the act of the opposite party in collecting excess fare and penalty will amount to deficiency in service cannot be sustained. The findings of the District Forum do not suffer from any infirmity. We see no merits in this appeal. This point is found against the complainant.

POINT No. 2 : In view of our findings on POINT No. 1, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.